I will say this, my knot [...] serves the purpose in which it was intended and it serves it flawlessly.

I don't doubt you. Once the knot is used in other applications where the legs may be loaded unequally due to object rotation, high friction or other factors, then you may have to revisit some of the points discussed in this thread.

Please site me an instance where this might occur.

So, for relative object rotation, imagine a line swinging around a post or branch. As the surface digs into the rope, it causes one leg to take more load than the other.

Such an effect can also happen when something traps or clamps the loop legs, such as a when an object is in a pile of other objects, or when the cross-section of an object contains a highly acute angle that wedges the rope in. In this case, even a tiny change of line direction would then put much more load on one leg of the loop.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 03:12:12 PM by roo »

Logged

If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Again, not my Knot. It is tied completely different and does not look the same once pulled tight.

It is tied exactly like what you (we) present, ...--dl*====

Because of the limit of the size and number of pic allowed per postI had to reduce my pics to the size shown. I will find some largercord/rope and post my pics elsewhere and simply put a link to themso everyone can see clearly just how the TALK is tied.

Your images above are perfectly clear, as is the one URLinkedto of this forum by me, and that cited in EKFR --there is noambiguity as far as the starting structure of the knots isconcerned, nor in your & my case of the drawn-up & setknot. And this should be clear to you, too! (The book doesn'tshow clear loading : it's two ends are of equal length and seized--presumably seized for keeping in place for photography--;and the brief verbal entry for this knot is typical nonsense forthis book.)

I did look at and tied knot 151. Close but it is not my knot. It is simpler and I think it is more likely to fail under heavy loads tha the TALK.

Hello and welcome, Oneloneknot. I agree that Ashley #151 is not the same as your TALK knot. I don't think Sweeney meant that it was, either, he probably just wanted to show you something you could compare your TALK to. And that bowstring knot is more likely to fail, too, I'm sure. I tried your figure 8 eye variant, and just like you said, it holds very well. Amazingly so, because I always thought you should reeve the working end through the figure 8 from the other end, but your version is neater. I know another adjustable loop, perhaps the best there is, which is described in the 1946 book "The Scouts Book Of Gadgets And Dodges", on page 14. http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/gadgets.pdf Maybe it's not of much use for a kite, but it's very clever, nonetheless.

Then there's the "Capstan Knot" which is not to be confused with the "Collar and Capstan knot" used by anglers, nor with the "Towboat Hitch" that's apparently also called "Capstan Hitch". The Capstan knot I mean is described by Ohrvall, (he calls it "gangspelsknut") and it has the peculiar property that it is adjustable, but only once. After you pull on the tail it is locked, and difficult to adjust further. Image attached.

I don't know if this Capstan Knot is any good for a kite, but it is quite peculiar, and you may like to try it out, if you're not familiar with it already. It works the opposite way of the TALK knot, since with the Capstan Knot we lock it by pulling on the tail, but your knot locks by pulling on the standing part. I like your knot better than the capstan knot, though, because yours is easier to adjust.

Not really... What it does, can be done with one single knot, instead of two. Also, it would be better if the second / "higher" overhand knot, which secures the Tail End, would had been tighter than the first / "lower" one, which only re-directs the continuation of the returning eye leg downwards - and not vice versa, as it is the case in this adjustable loop. Nevertheless, it is conceptually simple, that is true, and it is based on the method of adding an L-shaped ( here, a U-shaped *), or a helically-shaped, curvilinear segment ( a "handle"/ "obstacle" ) on the line one wants to be nipped and immobilized, as in the other knots discussed in this thread.

* A U-shaped segment of a tensioned loop makes the adjustment a two-step, and somewhat more difficult process. I prefer an L-shaped "handle".

Not really... What it does, can be done with one single knot, instead of two. Also, it would be better if the second / higher overhand knot, which secures the Tail End, would had been tighter than the first / lower one, which only re-directs the continuation of the returning eye leg downwards - and not vice versa, as it is the case in this adjustable loop. Nevertheless, it is conceptually simple, that is true, and it is based on the method of adding an L-shaped, or helically-shaped, curvilinear segment ( a "handle"/ "obstacle" ) on the line one wants to be nipped and immobilized, as in the other knots discussed in this thread.

Plese notice that this rope mechanism (we shouldn't call it a knot, I think) exposes part of the bound tail between the two overhand knots. That is clever because that exposed part can be gripped and pulled for adjustment through one of the overhands at a time, which is easier than if it was gripped with the same total force by only a single knot where you would have to overcome the same friction in one go.

I understand and agree with your point about having the last knot around the tail end gripping harder than the other. Without actually trying this, I guess the effect we are after could be achieved by instead having the other knot (where the working end is bent back) grip *looser* around the tail. That could be done by making that knot a figure 8 or even a figure 9. It is my experience that these knots don't bind with the same force as a regular overhand knot.

Or perhaps the last overhand knot could be replaced with two half-hitches? I havent tried, so I can't really be sure about how good it would be.

<EDIT>I just tried it. The figure 8 for some reason seems to grip harder in this configuration than the regular overhand. And with two half-hitches to lock the end of the tail in place the whole thing turned out to be much more difficult to adjust, at least when trying to expand the loop. Pulling it tighter was easier. I tried with a cow-hitch as well, but that tends to deform into a locking knot when you don't expect it, so it was no good.

Now I think the original knot was good enough, no need to improve it.</EDIT>

This is a veeery difficult issue, which we had discussed time and again in this Forum, without becoming able to reach at any consensus. I want only to point out that a ( practical ) "knot" is already a rope mechanism - and perhaps it is nothing more than that.

... that exposed part can be gripped and pulled for adjustment through one of the overhands at a time, which is easier than if it was gripped with the same total force by only a single knot where you would have to overcome the same friction in one go.

Interesting point. However, when the loop is loaded ( even with a fraction of the total, final working load ), the first / "higher" overhand knot does most of the job, so what you really gain is not that much. The problem is more essential : as I said, the continuation of the returning eye leg, when it goes through the first, more tight nipping structure, follows a U-shaped, rather than an L-shaped path. This maximizes the friction and the capstan effect at the tip of the U-turn, and so makes the job of the second / "lower" overhand knot a lot easier, but it also makes the adjusting of the loop a two-stage, more difficult and less quick procedure, if it is even partially loaded. I believe I had tied and tried all the single-knot adjustable loops there can be, and I had not seen anything more secure, and TIB, than the Pretzel loop.

This knot is a Helical loop (1) - but a not-good one ! The symmetric-Pretzel-based Helical loop shown in this thread ( third picture, at Reply#3 ) is a much-much better knot. The asymmetric-Pretzel-shaped Helical loop is also TIB (2). I wonder how people can tie some "new" knots that seem promising, but then do not try to understand how they work, in order to become able to improve them further. Any convoluted enough knot, on the continuation of the returning eye leg, which is wrapped inside one or more helical turns, on the continuation of the Standing End, belongs to this family of Helical loops - but this "gangspesknut" is probably one of the worst !

I understand and agree with your point about having the last knot around the tail end gripping harder than the other... I guess the effect we are after could be achieved by instead having the other knot (where the working end is bent back ) grip *looser* around the tail. That could be done by making that knot a figure 8 or even a figure 9.

OR... Or a figure 0 ! I mean, instead of having the continuation of the returning eye leg pass through a closed overhand knot, we can reeve it through the open eye of a slipped overhand knot, the same way we do in the Trucker s hitch. Going one step further, if we want to avoid tying a second / "lower" overhand knot altogether, we can drive the Working End around the encircled object for a second time ( that is, use a double loop ) and secure the Tail End in between the two opposed bights, a la Trucker s hitch, the way explained in (1) and shown in the attached picture.

OR... Or let the continuation of the returning eye leg pass firstly through the less tight overhand knot, the "lower" one, then pass again around the object for a second time, and finally be secured at the more tight overhand knot, the "higher" one. Both those double loop / two-eye solutions use much more material, of course, but they are also much more secure - the tensile forces running along the four legs of the two eyes are smaller, therefore the load the last leg and the last, "higher" overhand knot would have to carry, is lighter.

The Guyline hitch itself is not such a simple knot as it looks... Each of the two overhand knots has three openings, and the penetrating line can pass through them from the one or from the other side : 2 x 3 x 2 = 12 distinct possibilities. Under heavy loading, some of them may be re-dressed by themselves into some others, so the total number is not 12 - but it is not 1 either ! (*) Moreover, both knots may have the same ( both overhand or both underhand ) or the opposite handedness - and the last leg of the Tail End may be parallel or twisted around the eye leg in a clockwise or counter-clockwise way... Oh, my KnotGod ! I have seen that there ARE differences in the choking power ( regarding the first knot ) or the holding power ( regarding the second knot ) of those distinct loops, but I am not able to measure them. One has to tie all of them, load them, and see which tend to be transformed into others and which retain their individual form, and then test them in a systematic way...

(*) For example, see one of the many district forms of the Guyline hitch at the attached picture )

Correct, the picture I had used was a picture of a different, or of a wrongly tied knot - I edited my post, and I now use a picture taken by me, to illustrate what I was talking about. My intention was to point out that we can tie "overhand/underhand" knots of the same or of different handedness, we can pass the penetrating line through them from the one or the other side, and that the last leg can be parallel to or twisted around the eye leg, etc. The way/angle lines meet each other influences the friction forces generated between them at the area of contact. In the binder shown below, the green lines show the directions of the two segments of the rope as it reaches/leaves this area - we see that they are not parallel to each other, as in the Guyline hitch cited "commonly" .

The verbal description of the knot is OK, it is the third sketch that is wrong.

" 1 Make an Overhand Knot some distance from the end, so that you leave enough running end to pass around the object and then back to the Overhand. 2 Pass the running end back through the bottom of the Overhand Knot. Sometimes two Overhand Knots are tied next to each other in the standing part. The running end is passed through the first one to provide the grip and the second one to hold the end down.

3 Tie two Overhand Knots in the standing part, and tuck the running end into the second one."

Again, not my Knot. It is tied completely different and does not look the same once pulled tight.

It is tied exactly like what you (we) present, ...--dl*====

Because of the limit of the size and number of pic allowed per postI had to reduce my pics to the size shown. I will find some largercord/rope and post my pics elsewhere and simply put a link to themso everyone can see clearly just how the TALK is tied.

Your images above are perfectly clear, as is the one URLinkedto of this forum by me, and that cited in EKFR --there is noambiguity as far as the starting structure of the knots isconcerned, nor in your & my case of the drawn-up & setknot. And this should be clear to you, too! (The book doesn'tshow clear loading : it's two ends are of equal length and seized--presumably seized for keeping in place for photography--;and the brief verbal entry for this knot is typical nonsense forthis book.)

--dl*====

Hi Dan! Looks like Oneloneknot doesn't believe you or anyone else who tells him that his knot is published already. Such scepticism is not an unreasonable attitude for anyone who reads posts in an Internet forum. But perhaps he could be convinced if you were to post a photo or a scan of that "Figure Eight Throat Tie" figure in the Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Ropework. "Seeing is believing", as they say.